MOVIES: "Doubt" (contains spoilers)

[SMHW]

I went in thinking guilty - I came out confused, but moved, and shaking, “doubt”. very apty titled.

I think the movie “worked” for that very reason.

In the early 1980s I belonged to a parish where a priest turned out to be an abuser. This priest was very warm, likable and friendly. He gave good homilies. He seemed to get along very well with children and would often join them on the school soccer field. (Surprise. surprise.)

When the first few parents began raising some concerns about this priest most parishioners thought that there was something wrong with the parents, not the priest. When the police finally came to take this priest away most of us still thought that this was just a terrible misunderstanding because priests, particularly nice priests like this one, couldn’t possibly be guilty of something so unbelievable.

Most people had a hard time imagining that ANYONE, priest or otherwise, would ever abuse a child. It just didn’t enter most people’s minds that sexual abuse of a pre-adolescent child was even possible.

 

[Vezelay]

“Doubt” is an excellent film. I encourage everyone to see it. I don’t know anybody who hasn’t really liked it. Meryl Streep plays a true witch of a nun… shudders will run down your spine if you went to catholic schools. Her character is awful and her performance is so good she is likely to be awarded the prize for top actress. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character is the best preacher I have ever heard. I think they should use him in seminaries as an example of brilliant preaching. Sometimes at mass on Sundays I sigh wishing he were preaching about tolerance or doubt or gossip or… anything. The best moral center of the film is Sister James (which was the name of Shanley’s 1st grade teacher who was also a consultant on the film). Best of all, for me, is that the chapel of my catholic undergraduate college in New York City (just up the Hudson a bit from the emergency plane landing) served as the 1964 Bronx parish church. It was thrilling for us alums to “be there” again. Our president tells us that with the money earned the exterior of the chapel will be restored. Halleluia! “The Saint Anthony Messenger” is a catholic magazine with a good review of the movie. Happy movie going!

 

[jtindell]

My wife pointed out that if the priest had a clear conscience, he would have called the nun’s bluff about the previous parish. Interesting.

Ahhhhh, never thought about that. Good point.

 

[whatevergirl]

***I took a vacation day today…and rented Doubt.

I recall a thread about this on here, but I couldn’t locate it…thought I’d start a new one.

Ugh, I have so many questions. So…what do you think? Did the priest do something, or did Sister Aloysius just want him gone? I thought it was interesting that she lied …BUT…he reacted to the lie. Did he react appropriately, OR would you have done the same thing, if someone threatened to look into your past? I thought maybe nothing happened, but he didn’t want to deal with it.

Then, the blond boy throughout, seemed suspicious…as though he didn’t like Fr Flynn for some reason…

What did you think?***

 

[JPUSC]

I doubt I’m gonna watch this movie.

 

[whatevergirl]

I doubt I’m gonna watch this movie.

Oh brother.

 

[dixieagle]

***I took a vacation day today…and rented Doubt.

I recall a thread about this on here, but I couldn’t locate it…thought I’d start a new one.

Ugh, I have so many questions. So…what do you think? Did the priest do something, or did Sister Aloysius just want him gone? I thought it was interesting that she lied …BUT…he reacted to the lie. Did he react appropriately, OR would you have done the same thing, if someone threatened to look into your past? I thought maybe nothing happened, but he didn’t want to deal with it.

Then, the blond boy throughout, seemed suspicious…as though he didn’t like Fr Flynn for some reason…

What did you think?***

I thought this was a terrific movie, well acted, raising many serious questions. I also had questions about the blond boy’s reaction to the priest. I think that Sr. Aloysius was suspicious of him based on his being “modern”, but think there may well have been something to it. We’ll never know, though, and I think that’s the point.

 

[whatevergirl]

*I agree, the acting was superb. But, it lacked something. Like I think there should have been less doubts. Then they’d have to change the name of the movie.

So…at the end (sorry spoiler)…when she says…‘I have doubts,’ and started crying to Sister James…did that mean that she regretted sending Fr Flynn away? He sounded like he ended up with a promotion? I also didn’t understand the conversation between Miller’s mom and Sister Aloysius…was Miller’s mom tolerant of any and all behavior because she just wanted her son to get into a good highschool? I wasn’t fully getting that exchange. I mean, I got it, but when Miller’s mom said…that ‘his dad beat him, it wasn’t just about the wine,’ what did that mean exactly?



The name of the movie should have been Confused. lol*

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It was a little far fetched that the two nuns in the story drew such a conclusion they did after hearing the little boy was in the rectory with the Father. The story takes place prior to the sex scandals becoming public so there would be no reason for the nuns to draw such a conclusion or raise any more suspicion than would be raised by a boy being alone in a room with his biological father. It was the writers imputing contemporary knowledge and suspicions of priests in women who wouldn’t have had that knowledge or suspicions.

It just didn’t make sense to me. Period.

Nun 1:“He met with the Father…Alone!”

Nun 2: “Really. Oh no!”

God bless

 

[child_of_God85]

I thought it was a really good, well done movie.
I don’t believe the Priest did anything to the boy. Maybe he had something in his past, but I really don’t believe it had anything to do with molesting children.
As far as the blond boy acting strange, I thought maybe he didn’t like the fact that the Priest was taking a black boy under his wing. Could be a racial thing there.

 

[whatevergirl]

It was a little far fetched that the two nuns in the story drew such a conclusion they did after hearing the little boy was in the rectory with the Father. The story takes place prior to the sex scandals becoming public so there would be no reason for the nuns to draw such a conclusion or raise any more suspicion than would be raised by a boy being alone in a room with his biological father. It was the writers imputing contemporary knowledge and suspicions of priests in women who wouldn’t have had that knowledge or suspicions.

It just didn’t make sense to me. Period.

Nun 1:“He met with the Father…Alone!”

Nun 2: “Really. Oh no!”

God bless

*I agree to an extent, except that the boy came back to class after having met with ‘father flynn’ with alcohol on his breath. The problem I had with the movie was that there wasn’t enough substance to go either way…to have a ‘doubt’ either way. It just seems hazy…the acting was great, but I didn’t find it riveting like many have commented in the media.

I watched a movie recently, called The Confessor…that was riveting…the acting wasn’t as good as Doubt, but it was very good, and kept you guessing. Oh well. I would give Doubt a 7. *

 

[Annn]

It was a little far fetched that the two nuns in the story drew such a conclusion they did after hearing the little boy was in the rectory with the Father. The story takes place prior to the sex scandals becoming public so there would be no reason for the nuns to draw such a conclusion or raise any more suspicion than would be raised by a boy being alone in a room with his biological father. It was the writers imputing contemporary knowledge and suspicions of priests in women who wouldn’t have had that knowledge or suspicions.

It just didn’t make sense to me. Period.

Nun 1:“He met with the Father…Alone!”

Nun 2: “Really. Oh no!”

God bless

It seemed to me that it was the writer’s intention that the viewers as well as the nuns in the movie would draw that conclusion because of a combination of factors, not just the fact that the priest was alone with the boy. Namely how withdrawn the kid was and the tenderness with which he was treated by the priest. I think the writing was meant to make viewers feel somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even guilty about drawing conclusions about someone’s “evil” actions based on a high degree of kindness!

I liked the movie enough, but I imagine it worked better on stage. It made for a bit of a slow film, I think.

 

[whatevergirl]

It seemed to me that it was the writer’s intention that the viewers as well as the nuns in the movie would draw that conclusion because of a combination of factors, not just the fact that the priest was alone with the boy. Namely how withdrawn the kid was and the tenderness with which he was treated by the priest. I think the writing was meant to make viewers feel somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even guilty about drawing conclusions about someone’s “evil” actions based on a high degree of kindness!

I liked the movie enough, but I imagine it worked better on stage. It made for a bit of a slow film, I think.

I agree, annn…it was slow…not just slow even…but like stagnant…like I was watching paint dry or something, in parts.

 

[CarolinNC]

There is no DOUBT in my mind, I will not be watching this movie.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I agree to an extent, except that the boy came back to class after having met with ‘father flynn’ with alcohol on his breath.

It seemed to me that it was the writer’s intention that the viewers as well as the nuns in the movie would draw that conclusion because of a combination of factors, not just the fact that the priest was alone with the boy. Namely how withdrawn the kid was and the tenderness with which he was treated by the priest. I think the writing was meant to make viewers feel somewhat uncomfortable and maybe even guilty about drawing conclusions about someone’s “evil” actions based on a high degree of kindness!

I disagree, that is if I remember correctly how the series of events went down in the movie. The first and only thing the head nun knew was that the boy was alone with the Father for which her initial shocked reaction came from. Afterward she was informed about the other factors. It seemed to me that the factors of the alcohol and the child’s behavior only strengthened her original suspicion that she had when she was first informed that the boy was alone with the Father.

Either way the Father’s explanation should have been sufficient to ease the nun’s suspicions since there is no track record back then of Priest’s molesting children and no reason to believe that the well being of the child was in danger. No reason at all that is if the nun didn’t have contemporary knowledge of the sex scandal.

I mean today we have victims who are saying that they were molested and there were still people who did not believe them. All these nuns had to go on was a private meeting that the supposed victim is saying nothing happened and the the Father explained that he was discussing his drinking of the wine.

I just don’t buy the fact that these nuns would have these suspicions in the era that this story was supposed to take place in. Would it be justifiable for nuns today to have these suspicions if the same circumstances occurred? After knowing what we know now I believe so; but not back then.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

God bless

 

[dixieagle]

*I agree, the acting was superb. But, it lacked something. Like I think there should have been less doubts. Then they’d have to change the name of the movie.

So…at the end (sorry spoiler)…when she says…‘I have doubts,’ and started crying to Sister James…did that mean that she regretted sending Fr Flynn away? He sounded like he ended up with a promotion? I also didn’t understand the conversation between Miller’s mom and Sister Aloysius…was Miller’s mom tolerant of any and all behavior because she just wanted her son to get into a good highschool? I wasn’t fully getting that exchange. I mean, I got it, but when Miller’s mom said…that ‘his dad beat him, it wasn’t just about the wine,’ what did that mean exactly?



The name of the movie should have been Confused. lol*

The conversation between Sr. Aloysius and Mrs. Muller does indicate that she will tolerate improper behavior because she is desperate for him to get into a good high school; the conversation also implies that she and his father suspect that Donald has homosexual tendencies, and that is the real reason his father beat him.

I think that the fact that Fr. Flynn has been at three parishes in five years, and that he reacts to Sr. Aloyisius’ lie about checking with his previous parish, signals that he may, indeed, be guilty. The doubts are, however, the whole point!

 

[dixieagle]

I disagree, that is if I remember correctly how the series of events went down in the movie. The first and only thing the head nun knew was that the boy was alone with the Father for which her initial shocked reaction came from. Afterward she was informed about the other factors. It seemed to me that the factors of the alcohol and the child’s behavior only strengthened her original suspicion that she had when she was first informed that the boy was alone with the Father.

Either way the Father’s explanation should have been sufficient to ease the nun’s suspicions since there is no track record back then of Priest’s molesting children and no reason to believe that the well being of the child was in danger. No reason at all that is if the nun didn’t have contemporary knowledge of the sex scandal.

I mean today we have victims who are saying that they were molested and there were still people who did not believe them. All these nuns had to go on was a private meeting that the supposed victim is saying nothing happened and the the Father explained that he was discussing his drinking of the wine.

I just don’t buy the fact that these nuns would have these suspicions in the era that this story was supposed to take place in. Would it be justifiable for nuns today to have these suspicions if the same circumstances occurred? After knowing what we know now I believe so; but not back then.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

God bless

Perhaps this type of suspicion back in the '50s isn’t as far-fetched as you think. I can’t help but think that the sisters in the Catholic schools where abuse was taking place had to have some kind of inkling that something was going on (it turns out that there were TWO molesters in my childhood parish at the same time in the late 50s, early 60s!) It doesn’t in any way seem strange to me that suspicions would have occasionally been raised.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Perhaps this type of suspicion back in the '50s isn’t as far-fetched as you think. I can’t help but think that the sisters in the Catholic schools where abuse was taking place had to have some kind of inkling that something was going on (it turns out that there were TWO molesters in my childhood parish at the same time in the late 50s, early 60s!) It doesn’t in any way seem strange to me that suspicions would have occasionally been raised.

I guess you are right all we can do is speculate about the suspicions of priests by nuns in the 1950’s. I still believe that upon finding out that a child was alone with a priest in the 1950’s would cause the same reaction as finding out that a child was alone with his teacher (That is in the 1950’s of course because finding this out today may raise suspicions ). But I can only speculate you are right.

God bless

 

[yellowbird]

I loved this movie. My thoughts:

Sr. A had a problem with a prior Priest who messed with a child and it wasn’t delt with properly by the Bishop. Then this Priest comes along and is very friendly with the children and she sees him “touch” a child and all those feelings about the previous Priest come rushing back and she assumes he is just like the bad one.

The mother was OK with the Priest befriending her son because her son was gay and his father hated him for it and she felt he needed a male role model … plus she couldn’t make a stink about the Priest because the Dad would kill the son because of him being gay. She didn’t care if the Priest messed with her kid - if the kid was happy that was good enough for her.

I don’t think the Priest did anything wrong. I think Sr. A had it in for him and just ran with it. I saw ZERO evidence of her going to God with her concerns. She even admited that sometimes a person needs to go outside of God and do what’s right in their own mind.

I think the Priest caved because he just wasn’t up for the fight or maybe he didn’t want the black gay boy to get dragged into it.

I thought the blonde boy was just a brat.

At the end, I think Sr. A had “doubts” about her faith. She was convinced the Priest was evil and nobody did a thing about it. How could this be God’s Church? That’s what she was thinking IMO. The young nun was right - Sr. A couldn’t stand him because he had long nails AND he liked sweet tea AND he was friendly with the people… and I think she truly believed he was a molestor, even though he wasn’t.

 

[whatevergirl]

*I appreciate your post…wow, you cleared a lot of confusion up for me.
So – the boy was gay? I totally missed that. It makes sense as I tie back in the conversation the mom was having with Sr A…ok.

I thought the film was wonderfully acted…I just think it lacked something…I found Meryl Streep to be overacting in this film, frankly. She is an amazing actress, but it just seemed to leap in places where I didn’t think it needed to, and remained stagnant in places it should have leaped.

TY for your thoughts.*